Peanut Gallery

I agree.I've always been a bit fuzzy on the falsification issue. I understood what bluegenes was saying and hopefully I can retain it. I tend to get confused when people pull out the set A and set B instead of showing a real issue. Practical application works better. I like what bluegenes is doing so far.I was a bit disappointed in the last response I read from RAZD. He didn't really address what was said. A bit of let down.

Hi, Onifre. So that stuff really works for you, eh?I like bright colors, but not on my reading material. I definitely think a simpler approach would be better.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

And shorter. When the reply goes on for three pages, quoting every line in the previous post and responding in detail, I just ignore it all.Brevity...

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Bluejay, Yes But you don't see the potential!Look at the difference: Boooo... Boringggggg... No one cares....But look at this: Hellz yeah!!!!You make the call, but I think the 2nd one is the coolest. And should be the way science announces any discovery. - Oni

Ah ha! So bunnies can come from somewhere other than rabbits! Btw, I think your debate with RAZ is slowly turning into an Abbott and Costello routine.Blue: All supernatural beings come from the human imagination.RAZD: That's an extraordinary claim, do you have evidence?Blue: Do you have evidence for another source?RAZD: No, no, you show me the evidence for yours?Blue: My what? I just proposed a theory.RAZD: That's not a theory.Blue: What's not a theory? Supernatural beings come from human imagination? Sure it is, just as all baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.RAZD: Nope.Blue: What do you mean no? Show me another source.RAZD: You show me evidence first.Blue: For what?RAZD: Your extraordinary claim.Blue: What claim, about the rabbits?RAZD: No, about the supernatural beings.Blue: Just show me one that doesn't.RAZD: Doesn't what?Blue: ...doesn't come from the human imagination.RAZD: I don't have to.Blue: Then my theory isn't falsified.RAZD: Sure it is, cause you haven't shown evidence.Blue: Evidence for what? I'm asking you to show me it doesn't come from the human imagination. Just as baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.RAZD: I need evidence from you first.Blue: For the rabbit?RAZD: No, for your claim.Blue: Dude, just show me one source other than the human imagination.RAZD: Nope...you first.Blue: Me first what?RAZD: Evidence...Blue: For what?!?!?!?!RAZD: Your claim.Blue: What claim? I just proposed a theory! Like the one about the rabbits.RAZD: Cognitive dissonance...Blue: What the fuck are you talking about???RAZD: Confirmation bias...Blue: For fuck sake, just show me one source other than human imagination!!!RAZD: I'm gonna go ride my bike.../the end- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

B+ for reading comprehension, young oni.

I see RAZD wasted no time pulling out his Cognitive Bias canard. Honestly, I think it's become the equivalent of a Godwin, as it basically consists of going "ner na ner na ner! I don't have to listen to you 'cos your brain don't work". It's really unhelpful to actually having a useful discussion.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

So you disagree with RAZD's position?Then you are obviously guilty of un-evidenced opinions, based on your world view, biases, confirmation bias and wishful thinking all of which you will never accept due to cognitive dissonance.Say no more.....

Now if RAZD could just spare us from his long and tedious multi-color sermons (such as Message 14), I might resume reading the "debate".

RAZD has some important things to say at times, but usually I skip over his pontificating with multi-color posts. I have been resorting to just reading Bluegenes replys in order to get the gist of the debate.

I have read both RAZ''s and bluegenes posts.RAZ is doing what he always does when confronted with an argument he is unable to counter. He seeks to self moderate/referee the thread in question in his favour. Every comparison he doesn't like or point he cannot answer becomes "Off topic". Every argument he cannot deal with is met with declarations about rules and guidelines rather than counter-arguments. All while he relentlessly engages in multi-coloured histrionics and assertions of cognitive dissonance etc. in his opponents.Bluegenes quite clearly stated the terms of the debate in the original challenge Message 167Why RAZD thinks the debate hinges on bluegenes ability to disprove anything (never mind things specifically designed to be immune from disproof) remains a mystery.

I hadn't even gotten around to reading back to RAZD's op until now but it's truly astounding.

quote:

---

Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

---

How is this not a violation of rule 4? Frankly I think RAZD's entire conduct throughout that "debate" should be the focus of moderator attention. He's unresponsive to rebuttals, doesn't keep a "narrow focus", engages in misrepresentation, and engages in "needling, hectoring and goading tactics."How long are we going to let this go on before we recognize that Bluegenes won it almost immediately? I think there should be a call for closing posts and the topic closed.

And spoil the fun.........?